Posted on 03/22/2007 11:28:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
...We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.
.... What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
... The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government.
... They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.
If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together.
(Excerpt) Read more at query.nytimes.com ...
If your statement is true, then it should pass this simple test:
Are freedom and liberty easier to preserve in the absence of authority, or more difficult?
In Somalia, there is a near total void in authority, so the people of Somalia experience near total freedom FROM authority, yet their freedoms are threatened each and every day by the existence of all kinds of thugs who take control by force.
So, the complete lack of a government exerting authority in the country, has created a situation where there is very little freedom or liberty.
Now, on the opposite spectrum, overwhelming authority used in the defense of freedom also destroys freedom...take as an example communism. It has always been sold as freedom from oppression for the masses, when in fact it became total oppression.
When Rudy describes the idea that freedom is about the willingness of human beings to cede to a LAWFUL authority, he is in fact simply paraphrasing the Founders when they said that governments (lawful authority) were instituted by men (willingly) to secure our inalienable rights.
"BTW, aren't you something of a libertarian?"
I'm a newly-minted Neolibertarian.
That means that I want to wipe the Islamofascists off the face of the Earth by any means necessary, and go back to discussing whether we should be allowed to run naked through Sweet Tomatoes only after that's accomplished.
I'm a newly-minted Neolibertarian.
That means that I want to wipe the Islamofascists off the face of the Earth by any means necessary, and go back to discussing whether we should be allowed to run naked through Sweet Tomatoes only after that's accomplished.The difference is that libertarians fight both battles at the same time. I agree with you 100% on fighting terrorism. However, would you agree that we should fight to dismantle agencies such as the BATFE and Department of Education, end or severely cut back on the unconstitutional Federal War on Drugs, end welfare, and overall slash the size of government and taxes at the same time?
That's a crock of #^%$#. I support the literal reading of the Second, and the original intent of the people who wrote it. But when I discuss it with some around here, the moment I get to the word "regulated", you all want to interpret that ONE WORD as something other than "relating to regulations" and call your reading a "literal" reading.
"but if I ping every libertarian freeper I know of and ask their opinion"
So, your idea of libertarianism has a certain amount of Borg injected into it?
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"Regulated: In the context of government and public services regulation (as a process) is the control of something by rules, as opposed to its prohibition."
"Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron. You can either believe in the literal reading of the Amendment, or in an interpretation of the Amendment, but not both. And if you support a literal reading, you don't need an 8,000 word essay to explain what it means.
Last but certainly not least, you either support the Framer's original intent when writing the Constitution and the BOR, or the more modern "interpretation" of it.
Originally, the Framers wrote a Constitution to describe the powers granted to the Federal government, and the restrictions placed upon it, and they made it very clear that whatever powers weren't granted to the Federal government by the Constitution and the BOR, or prohibited to them by the same, fell to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, the people who wrote the Constitution and the BOR intended the grant of powers and the consequent restrictions to be applied to the Fed, not to any other level of government.
Since then, that has been changed by the Courts.
Can the Federal government write laws restricting gun ownership?
Not according to the Constitution.
Can State governments regulate gun ownership?
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits them from doing so.
Finally, the Constitution of every State upholds the right of the people to bear arms, so while they may "regulate" gun ownership, they can't prohibit it.
No one has the right to take my guns from me, as long as I am a law-abiding citizen.
If we lose the battle with the Islamofascists, every other point is moot.
In that rare occasion when I've been involved in a fist fight, I've never taken the time to try balancing my check book while dodging haymakers.
Bill Maher is an a$$hole.
Explain the concept of freedom lacking the presence of authority.
Then why adopt the "libertarian" label at all? President Bush himself has said that the War on Terror will last for at least the rest of our lifetimes. Going by your logic, we will never have time to fight for liberty-based domestic causes. Why not just label yourself a "foreign policy hawk" or a "War on Terror supporter"? They're both perfectly honorable terms and describe your views much more accurately than the "libertarian" label.
Agreed 100%.
We already duked this whole 2nd Amendment thing out last month and parted ways respectfully. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.
"Can State governments regulate gun ownership?
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits them from doing so."
In fact it does
Article VI, Section III
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Why not just get rid of the State Constitutions then?
The state constitutions are supposed to be in line with the Federal Constitution.
Anything that is not covered in the Federal Constitution is a power reserved to the states and to the people.
Because I want to distance myself from FR's current definition of "conservative", which appears to have taken a turn toward overwhelming government intrusion and ever growing centralized government power, with a bit of religious hysteria thrown in for good measure.
I support a centralized government which directs its energy to national defense,I am pro interventionism in behalf of national security, pro "freer" trade (as opposed to protectionism), and whatever national policy is in the best interest of the nation.
I believe that to solve what those of us on the right of the political spectrum believe to be the important social issues of our times, we need to roll back the powers of the Federal government, and give those powers back to the States.
Let each individual State decide on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and guns; that's what the Founders intended.
The war on terror will last the rest of our lifetime ONLY if we fight it half assed, and we're doing just that.
The Constitutions of the original States preceded the Federal Constitution...don't let little facts like that get in your way.
As I initially noted, it's perfectly obvious that there must be some authority to secure liberty.
However you and Rudy have the whole thing completely backwards. Freedom may depend on authority, but it is most certainly not ever "about" authority; some kinds of authority, notably our Constitution, are about freedom. That's just the way it is.
Somalia is not lacking in authority, it has too much, albeit local. Warlords running various territories with iron hands and violence is not the lack of authority.
And regarding the line from the Declaration, I know you understand that it says that governments are instituted "at the consent of the governed."
You and I may not be in great disagreement on all this stuff. My problem with Rudy's statement is that he makes it sound like freedom is at the service of authority instead of the other way around. I'll be waiting to see if he clarifies the question.
All powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution came from the States...they gave up very few powers when creating the Federal government.
We live today under a post Civil War definition of our nation, where we say "The United States is" rather than "The United States are..."
That explains much of the confusion about the original intent of the Constitution.
There is no authority in Somalia, there is power by force.
That's not authority, that's oppression.
Authority is granted, not taken.
The Constitution (granting powers/authority to a centralized government) was written so that our freedoms could be defended.
Luis, I'm not an authority on state constitutions as they existed in the 18th century, or even today, for that matter, but I do know that parts of them, including that of VA, were used to model the federal one. I also am fairly certain that none of the founding fathers would have happily countenanced any of the states turning into little tyrannies. That may be in the cards now, but it wasn't then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.